Skip to content


Ram Swaroop Modi Vs. S.T.A.T. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 198/1976
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)6
AppellantRam Swaroop Modi
RespondentS.T.A.T. and ors.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredGirdhari v. Regional
Excerpt:
.....the appellate authority has, on a consideration of the material on record, found that the regional transport authority did not even apply its mind to the question of revision of scope on the route. that being so, it had the authority and jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the regional transport authority fixing the limit under section 47(3). this court cannot interfere with such an order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.;the resolution of the regional transport authority increasing the scope under section 47(3) having been struck down, the stage carriage permit granted to the appellant on the route could have no valid existence and had to be set aside.;(b) practice - single judge is bound by decision of d.b.;special appeal summarily rejected - - 6. the learned..........9-9-1976.2. the learned single judge rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the state transport appellate tribunal, which in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 64-a of the motor vehicles act, set aside the resolution of the regional transport authority, jaipur dated 7-7-75, inasmuch as it had improperly revised the scope of permits on the route in question from 2 permits and 3 services to 3 permits and 4 services and the consequential stage carriage permit granted to the appellant on 2-1-1976 in pursuance thereof.3. there was no error of jurisdiction on the part of the state transport appellate authority. nor did it act in breach of the rules of natural justice. under section 64-a, the appellate authority had undoubtedly the power to interfere with.....
Judgment:

A.P. Sen, J.

1. This is a special appeal directed against an order of D.P. Gupta, J., dated 6-10-1976 rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant for setting aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajas-than, Jaipur dated 9-9-1976.

2. The learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, set aside the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 7-7-75, inasmuch as it had improperly revised the scope of permits on the route in question from 2 permits and 3 services to 3 permits and 4 services and the consequential stage carriage permit granted to the appellant on 2-1-1976 in pursuance thereof.

3. There was no error of jurisdiction on the part of the State Transport Appellate Authority. Nor did it act in breach of the rules of natural justice. Under Section 64-A, the Appellate Authority had undoubtedly the power to interfere with the order of the Regional Transport Authority determining the scops of services op the route under Section 47(3). It could interfere with the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority fixing the limit under Section 47(3) is revisable by the State Transport Appellate Authority on an application to it under Section 64-A. see, Laxmi Narain v. State Transport Authority : [1968]1SCR635 and J.N. Wahal v. S.M. Jain (1969) 2 S.C.G. 833.

4. The question whether or not there was scope for increasing the services from 2 permits and 3 services to 3 permits and 4 services on the route in question was one for the transport authorities to determine. The Appellate Authority has on a consideration of the material on record, found that the Regional Transport Authority did not even apply its mind to the question of revision of scope on the route. That being so, it had the authority and jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the limit under Section 47(3), This Court cannot interfere with such an order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

5. There is no merit in the contention that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the stage carriage granted to the appellant. The resolution of the Regional Transport Authority increasing the scope under Section 47 (3) having been struck down, the stage carriage permit granted to the appellant on the route could have no valid existence and had to be set aside. In Girdhari v. Regional Transport Authority 1970 RLW 465, Jagat Narain, J., while delivering the judgment of the Division Bench, observed:

If on a revision application under Section 65-A. The State Transport Authority is of the opinion that the route should not be opened then it is competent to it to cancel all the permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority oh the new route opened by it. Further in case the State Transport Authority is of the opinion that the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority is too high it can reduce the limit and pass an appropriate order.

6. The learned Single Judge was clearly bound by the decision of the Division Bench in Girdhari v. Regional transport Authority, Supra.

7. The special appeal is, therefore, rejected summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //